Why would you order Dual Motor Performance? (cost breakdown)

[usofrob]

If you look at this and think about the base as the included price, Dual Motor Performance is $5k, and Quad Motor is $8k. It becomes clear that the main thing you're buying is Sport Mode:
https://rivian.com/support/article/...al-motor-awd-performance-dual-motor-awd-and-q

My first assumption is that you're paying for HP. But, you get ~100 vs ~235 for quad. So, that doesn't scale well. I made a spreadsheet to put in a few numbers. If you assume there is value in HP, Sport and Off Road modes, then this is a reasonable output:

​	HP​	Calculated Value​	HP Value​	Conserve (value for not having)​	Sport​	Rock Crawl​	Rally​	Drift​	Soft Sand​
Dual Base​	0​	0​	0​	0​	NA​	NA​	NA​	NA​	NA​
Dual Performance​	100​	5000​	1000​	0​	4000​	NA​	NA​	NA​	NA​
Quad​	235​	7950​	2350​	NA​	4000​	400​	400​	400​	400​

It's hard to choose values for the increased 135 HP and the 4 additional off road modes and keep it all less than $3000 additional.

But, maybe you think there's value in having the Automatic AWD. (Which has yet to be determined if it's better) Maybe that equates to better range, or maybe it's less hassle of switching to conserve.

​	HP​	Calculated Value​	HP Value​	Conserve (value for not having)​	Sport​	Rock Crawl​	Rally​	Drift​	Soft Sand​
Dual Performance​	100​	5000​	3000​	2000​	2000​	NA​	NA​	NA​	NA​
Quad​	235​	8000​	7050​	NA​	2000​	237.5​	237.5​	237.5​	237.5​

This feels closer for the HP increase, but are the off road modes so useless?

Does anyone have any better values for this?

This all spawns from my disappointment that the modes are differentiated by power-train. I'd been assuming that all R1* would get the same modes, and power range and limitations of a dual motor were the differentiaters. But, it seems Rivian doesn't think the dual motor should be going off road, and that 600hp isn't enough to be sporty. Why did Rivian tease us with drifting the dual motor if they weren't sharing that mode with the customers?

I don't have a reservation for an EV9 yet, but I might very soon because of the dual motor let down. I feel like the base dual motor is not nearly as much of a jack of all trades and brings its performance down closer to its upcoming rivals but for a lot more $$. The Volvo and EV9 both look really good.

Sponsored

 

[SeaGeo]

I'm really curious where the ex90 and ev9 and up pricing. I still have an ex90 reservation, but am 90% sure we will cancel it.

The dual motor has an offroad setting, it's basically just the default all terrain mode for the quad. Even the base dual motor variant should smoke the top of thenline ev9 in performance, and that's ignoring the suspension and ground clearance differences.

 

[connoisseurr]

I suppose you could also break it down by advertised 0-60 time and range, once the dual motor performance numbers are advertised. Same applies for EPA range.

It also looks like you’re getting other aesthetic upgrades with the quad motor variant, like yellow badging, yellow calipers, etc.

The dual motor variants we’ve seen come off the line didn’t have any yellow on badging, nor did it have yellow brake calipers

 

[Ryanj]

This is pure speculation on my part based on previous comments but I think the other modes will eventually be offered to dual motor variants as part of their membership. I agree that even the “base” dual motor will outperform all of the upcoming competitors and be competitive in price.

 

[COdogman]

One scenario I can imagine is that real world range for the dual is better than estimates, which could be attractive for someone who wants a more efficient R1 plus most of the performance If they upgrade.

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

In my opinion, the only reason the dual performance exists is as a hedge against tax credits so people can purchase the vehicle with the base dual motor on the Monroney and then later paid upgrade to the performance. I also think it’s for people who are extremely price conscience, and then give them some upgrade paths for performance down the road But yes, if you can stomach the upgrade fee, the quad motor is definitely better and based on the specs that Rivian has published the efficiency of the dual motor, isn’t that huge of an upgrade either and I personally do not like the idea of losing the permanent all-wheel-drive I’ve had vehicles that were all-wheel-drive, but really front wheel drive most of the time, and they just don’t drive as well as vehicles that do more rear bias or even split.

so my opinion is, if you don’t care about these things get the base dual motor and leave it alone if you do care about these things get the quad motor.

 

[MountainBikeDude]

The interesting thing about all this, is Quad motor Large pack technically has better range than the dual motors large pack.

Why?

Estimated range of both with or without the AT Upgrade is +40Km for Dual over the Quad. But, the quad can be put into conserve mode which pushes it an additional +50Km or 10ish km beyond the Dual Large. Having the dedicated conserve mode on the Quad gives it that edge.

 

[TexasCrane]

I suspect that the drive mode differences are primarily driven by the lack of ability to do 4-wheel torque vectoring on the dual motor variants.

 

[MountainBikeDude]

I suspect that the drive mode differences are primarily driven by the lack of ability to do 4-wheel torque vectoring on the dual motor variants.

It would still be capable technically, through ABS like other traditional ICE vehicles that have it, but not to the same degree as the quad

 

[usofrob]

... and I personally do not like the idea of losing the permanent all-wheel-drive I’ve had vehicles that were all-wheel-drive, but really front wheel drive most of the time, and they just don’t drive as well as vehicles that do more rear bias or even split.

so my opinion is, if you don’t care about these things get the base dual motor and leave it alone if you do care about these things get the quad motor.

This is kind of what I was thinking as well.

The interesting thing about all this, is Quad motor Large pack technically has better range than the dual motors large pack.

Why?

Estimated range of both with or without the AT Upgrade is +40Km for Dual over the Quad. But, the quad can be put into conserve mode which pushes it an additional +50Km or 10ish km beyond the Dual Large. Having the dedicated conserve mode on the Quad gives it that edge.

I think we're still waiting on the official EPA estimates. But the presumption that dual motor is actually better range may not be true compared to conserve mode.

And it still remains that for base -> Performance for $5k vs Performance to Quad for $3k, you're getting a lot more for your money with the Performance to Quad upgrade. So, if one was tempted to do the Performance upgrade, they'd probably just go all the way to quad. And it seems like there aren't really any downsides confirmed yet. (Unless you hate the yellow badges )

 

[docwhiz]

I'm looking at these options for my ordered R1S which may be delivered early next year.
I've driven Teslas for 9 years and never felt the need to go for "performance" versions since the base versions have had incredible performance. I can understand that some people crave performance but it just isn't worth anything for me.
The different drive modes might be something of value but I tend to think that I wouldn't appreciate the subtle differences (and it's all kind of confusing... why doesn't the car just always sense road conditions and just do the right thing). My Teslas don't have any drive modes and they perform flawlessly. They've all been dual motor cars and get me through all kinds of road conditions... even dirt roads, snow, ice, etc. (with air suspension). The ABS and traction control are incredibly good. I've never had an uncontrolled slip on wet, dry, snow, gravel, dirt, etc. One incident drove home the superior handling of my older Model S. I was driving on the freeway up Donner summit and the road was wet. I entered a curve (too fast). I felt the rear end start to slide but within milliseconds I heard a beep and the ABS/traction control system took over and immediately corrected. Perfect.

Speaking of performance. I drove my daughter's R1S (quad motor) yesterday for a few hours (freeway and secondary roads) and while it had strong acceleration, the handling wasn't as good as my Model S and the ride seemed rough.

As far as efficiency goes, I think we need to accept the figures provided by Rivian rather than speculate on changes and modes. The standard dual motor wins there.

Badges. I really don't care about badges, etc.. I'd prefer to have no badges at all.

 

[Swilly]

Speaking of performance. I drove my daughter's R1S (quad motor) yesterday for a few hours (freeway and secondary roads) and while it had strong acceleration, the handling wasn't as good as my Model S and the ride seemed rough.

One is a sport sedan and the other is a SUV. The S better handle smoother than a Rivian.

 

[BigSkies]

I get the desire for more functionality from dual motor. But do the Kia or Volvo offer any of those quad motor benefits you’re foregoing?

I feel like the dual motor is more comparable to both the Kia and Volvo, and will likely (I assume) come in at a roughly comparable price point. But feel free to prove me wrong on this, as I haven’t cross-shopped them in great detail.

 

[usofrob]

I get the desire for more functionality from dual motor. But do the Kia or Volvo offer any of those quad motor benefits you’re foregoing?

I feel like the dual motor is more comparable to both the Kia and Volvo, and will likely (I assume) come in at a roughly comparable price point. But feel free to prove me wrong on this, as I haven’t cross-shopped them in great detail.

That's really my point. The base dual motor won't differentiate as much as it could against the Kia and Volvo. Rumor is the Kia will be noticeably cheaper, the Volvo is probably going to be similar to the Rivian.

 

[MidnightRivian]

That's really my point. The base dual motor won't differentiate as much as it could against the Kia and Volvo. Rumor is the Kia will be noticeably cheaper, the Volvo is probably going to be similar to the Rivian.

Are we seriously comparing a Kia crossover mini van looking thing or a boring Volvo to a Rivian EV-Range Rover looking thing that can raise to 14.9" height and go in 3 feet of water. None of those points have anything to do with power.

Rivian is extremely capable and Kia / Volvo / Tesla look like baby toys beside the Rivian in looks and functionality and all around performance.

Capability
Drive through 3+ feet of water. Rock crawl a 100% grade. Traverse just about any terrain with 14.9 inches of ground clearance. Tow up to 7,700 lbs.

Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.
Warren Buffett

Sponsored